At the Tip of Our Tongues
What our everyday mealtime language can hold, hand over and make possible
Of all the tools we bring to a mealtime—the menu, the room, the bowls, the serving spoons, the way the food has been prepared—one of the most powerful is also the easiest to overlook.
It arrives at the table with us. It can change the feeling of a meal in a single sentence. And it is, quite literally, at the tip of our tongues.
“Just try it.”
“You need to eat a little more.”
“Good girl for eating your vegetables.”
“That one is healthy.”
These phrases come from care: from wanting a child to be nourished, to experience something new, to appreciate the food, or simply to have eaten enough before the meal ends.
And yet, hidden inside each small sentence is a question about responsibility.
Who is being asked to make nourishment happen here?
Who is carrying the worry?
Who is being asked to prove that the meal has gone well?
This is what fascinates me about mealtime language. A phrase may last only a second, but it can reveal an entire way of thinking about children, appetite, food and the adult role.
Not because there is a list of perfect words that will make every mealtime calm. There is not. But because the words we use can show us where the weight of the meal is sitting—and whether we are holding the parts that belong with us, or quietly handing them to a child too young to carry them.
Researchers have been listening too
There is something wonderfully ordinary about the way some of this research has been done. Researchers have sat near early learning tables and listened. They have watched meals unfold and counted the sentences adults use: the invitations, descriptions, reminders, comparisons, questions, praise and pressure.
The Table Talk Revised study observed educators across early learning classrooms. Its researchers recorded the language used at breakfast and lunch and grouped it according to what it appeared to be doing. Some language explored food, connected a child’s current experience with an earlier one, or supported attention to hunger and fullness. Other language directed eating, compared children or placed pressure on the amount consumed.
The headline finding is uncomfortable. In that particular sample, pressure to eat occurred approximately once every three and a half minutes, and educators were more than 16 times as likely to pressure a child to eat as they were to cue hunger or fullness. This indicates how easily care, responsibility and anxiety can make their way into ordinary speech before anyone has really noticed.
This was not the first study to hear that pattern. An earlier paper, rather perfectly titled Are You Done?, examined childcare providers’ mealtime talk and found that adults often directed children towards amounts, finishing times and other external cues, rather than helping them retain attention to their own hunger and fullness. The recorded language included asking whether children were done, telling them to take, try or finish food, praising eating and explaining that particular foods were good for them.
Then, in 2025, researchers studying Canadian childcare centres found that pressure was more likely to appear as repeated offering or encouragement without reference to the child’s appetite, telling children that a food was good or liked, prompting them to try it, serving more without first asking, or praising them for eating. It was a small descriptive study rather than a verdict on every mealtime, but it offers a useful mirror: pressure can sound very warm indeed.
In What Happens When Food Reaches the Table, I explored what can happen when the wider system is not holding the meal clearly enough. Adults begin carrying more of it themselves. More is explained, interpreted, encouraged and managed.
Language is often where that extra carrying becomes audible.
Pressure rarely sounds like pressure
The interesting question, then, is not simply whether a phrase sounds nice.
It is: what job is this sentence asking the child to do?
“Just try it” may sound gentle, but tasting has now become something the child is being asked to do, rather than something they can approach when ready.
“You need to eat more” places the adult’s judgement above the child’s present experience of hunger or fullness.
“Good girl for eating your vegetables” ties adult approval—and perhaps even the child’s sense of being good—to the performance of eating.
“That is healthy” may sound educational, but at the table it can quietly pass the work of nutrition downstream, as though the child now needs to make the nutritionally correct choice from the plate in front of them.
Nourish places that work much earlier in the food system. Leaders, chefs, cooks and educators collectively create a nourishing offer. They plan the menu, choose and prepare the ingredients, build variety across the day and week, make food visible and approachable, and provide dependable opportunities to eat. Children do not then need to demonstrate that the nutrition plan has worked by eating every component of a particular Tuesday lunch.
They can simply encounter the meal and decide what and how much their body is ready for.
This does not mean adults become vague or passive. The boundary can remain clear:
“Lunch will finish in five minutes.”
“There is more pasta in the bowl.”
“You can leave that on your plate.”
“I’ll help you move your chair.”
The structure remains with the adult. Nothing about the quantity eaten needs to be added.
One small test I find useful is to imagine what happens after the sentence. If the child says no, remains silent, or does nothing at all, can the moment remain genuinely comfortable?
A question is only a choice when no is safe.
“Would you like to smell it?” can be a warm invitation when the adult readily moves on. Asked again and again, with the food held out and the whole table waiting, it becomes a campaign.
Even “It’s here if you want it” can carry pressure when it is repeated hopefully while an adult watches for the bite. Words travel inside tone, timing, gaze, posture and expectation. The child receives all of it.
This is why a shared approach cannot be reduced to swapping one approved phrase for another. The deeper work is noticing what we are hoping the words will make the child do.
Giving children more words than “yummy” and “yucky”
Language can do more than remove pressure. It can give children something extraordinarily useful: words for their own experience.
Adults tend to meet food through categories such as protein, iron, fibre, vegetables and balance. Children encounter it much more immediately. They meet smell, sound, temperature, colour, shape, texture, movement, memory and surprise.
A carrot can snap, bend or grate.
Yoghurt can be cold, smooth, slippery or unexpectedly lumpy.
Roasted pumpkin might taste sweet to one child, smoky to another and simply too soft to someone else.
A sauce might feel warm and comforting, or it might spread into parts of the plate where a child did not expect it to go.
None of these perceptions is wrong. They are the child’s unique encounter with the food.
This is one of the threads running through Food for Thought and, more recently, From Squish to Spoon. “Yummy” and “yucky” are often far too small for what a child is trying to tell us.
Sticky. Crisp. Fibrous. Juicy. Grainy. Tart. Warm. Dry. Slippery. Sharp. Soft at the edge. Crunchy in the middle.
These words allow children to describe food before they are required to accept or reject it.
“The lumps surprised me.”
“I don’t like wet on my fingers.”
“It smells strong.”
“I want the sauce beside it.”
“I can hear it crunch.”
That is useful information. What might otherwise be read as fussiness or non-compliance becomes a child beginning to explain their perception.
And the vocabulary can travel beyond the food itself.
“It is too loud here.”
“I am still eating.”
“I need more room.”
“That bowl is too close.”
“I want to use the small spoon.”
“I’m finished.”
Children are not only experiencing the plate. They are experiencing the whole mealtime, and language can help them tell us what that experience is like.
Sensory-education traditions such as SAPERE have been exploring this territory for decades. Their methods invite children to use all five senses, notice differences in perception and move beyond the simple categories of “I like it” and “I don’t like it”. A two-year study with school-aged children found that sensory education produced small, not always consistent, improvements in identifying tastes and smells and describing sensory properties, with stronger effects among the younger children. That is interesting evidence, but not a promise that descriptive language will transform eating. What matters to me is that it can help children become more precise observers and communicators of their own experience.
Early-years sensory guidance carries two particularly helpful principles: no one has to try, and no one has to like. Adults can model looking, smelling and touching, then use open invitations such as “What do you notice?” or “What does it remind you of?” The exploration remains worthwhile even when nothing is tasted.
And here the chef or cook has a wonderful contribution to make. Kitchens hold an extraordinary vocabulary: grated, folded, roasted, simmered, toasted, crisp at the edge, soft in the centre. The cook can help the wider team understand why today’s carrot bends while yesterday’s snapped, or why the same lentil appears smooth in one meal and visible in another.
When that knowledge travels from the kitchen to the table, adults can offer children information rather than advertising.
“These carrots were roasted today, so they have gone soft.”
“This is the same cabbage we looked at yesterday, finely sliced.”
“The seeds become more fragrant when they are warmed.”
We are not telling the child what they will think. We are giving them material from which to form—and express—their own perception.
It can also help when adults speak from their own experience rather than declaring a universal truth.
“This tastes sharp to me.”
“I can hear mine crunch.”
“The cinnamon reminds me of toast.”
That small phrase, to me, leaves room for the child to experience something entirely different.
A recent conversation-analysis study in Japanese preschools offers another intriguing glimpse of this. Children initiated their own assessments of food using words, gaze and gesture, then looked to teachers and peers for agreement, disagreement or a response. Their talk about taste became part of social life at the table: a place of relationship and negotiation, not simply a report on whether something had been consumed.
Perhaps that is another reason not to fill every silence with our own interpretation. Children may be noticing, forming words, listening to someone else—or simply eating.
Please, thank you and the manners we model
One of my favourite small detours in this body of research is not really about feeding at all. It is about how children learn the familiar language of courtesy.
In one wonderfully specific study, researchers listened to the dinner-table conversations of American families with preschool-aged children. “Please”, “thank you” and “may I be excused?” appeared throughout the meals, along with the familiar adult prompts: “What do you say?” and “What’s the magic word?”
The study is old, tiny and culturally specific, so it does not give us a universal formula for teaching manners. What it shows is that mealtimes are places of linguistic socialisation. Children are learning how people ask, receive, acknowledge, disagree and belong.
Research into the development of gratitude gives us a similarly nuanced picture. Modelling matters, but so do gentle scaffolding, repeated everyday opportunities and conversations that help children notice what another person has done. There is no neat research verdict that says adults must never prompt a thank you. There is a more relational invitation: let children hear and experience appreciation living naturally between people, rather than making them solely responsible for performing it on command.
That might sound like:
“Could you please pass the water?”
“Thank you, Lily.”
“Thank you for making space for the bowl.”
“I’m going to tell Alex in the kitchen that I enjoyed the soup.”
“Thank you for bringing our lunch through.”
The adult is not delivering a lesson on gratitude. They are participating in a culture of it.
A child can be invited into that culture—“I’m going to thank the cook; you’re welcome to come with me”—without food becoming conditional on producing the correct social phrase.
Because a child does not have to earn nourishment through manners.
Please and thank you are valuable forms of social language, but they are not an entry ticket to the meal. Nor are they the only way respect is expressed. Families and cultures may show gratitude through words, gestures, helping, sharing, prayer, attention to food, or care for the people who prepared it.
The aim is not a room full of children reciting the same script. It is a community in which adults consistently treat children, colleagues, food and the work of the kitchen with respect—and children gradually come to participate in that culture in ways that are meaningful and developmentally possible.
This is the wider idea behind Respect Isn’t on the Plate — It’s in the Practice. Rules may tell children what respectful eating should look like. The everyday practices of adults show them what respect feels like.
Fewer feeding instructions can make room for richer conversation
Removing pressure does not mean removing language from the table.
In fact, it may allow much more interesting language to arrive.
Not every conversation at lunch needs to be about lunch. Children can talk about the bird outside, the tower they built, what happened in the garden, the smell coming from the kitchen, who is absent today, or what they plan to do next.
The child should not have to experience the whole relationship with the adult through commentary on their plate.
An Australian study of infant–toddler educators’ language during snack time described mealtimes as potentially rich contexts for language development, but found that this potential was often underused. More supportive language practice was associated with educators sitting with children, rather than moving around the room while managing the routine.
I find that a useful distinction.
The alternative to constant feeding direction is not distant silence. It is company.
It is an adult who can sit down, remain available, notice when help is needed, participate in conversation and allow the child’s eating to belong to the child.
Sometimes there will be sensory language. Sometimes there will be a clear routine boundary. Sometimes there will be laughter. Sometimes the most respectful sentence will be no sentence at all.
As I explored in When Pedagogy Reaches the Table, the capable child does not disappear when lunch begins. Nor does the thoughtful educator. The mealtime can remain a place of language, relationship, autonomy and learning without becoming an extended lesson in how much to eat.
Shared language is not the same as phrase policing
There is a risk in any conversation about language that we produce a new set of “right words”, place them on the wall, and ask educators to perform them perfectly.
That would miss the point.
Adult language is shaped by the wider system. A rushed transition produces different speech from a settled one. A meal that is hard to recognise or serve may require more explanation and intervention. A cook who receives only the feedback “they didn’t eat it” carries a different kind of pressure from one who can discuss texture, presentation, timing and children’s responses with the teaching team. A reliever without orientation may fall back on the phrases they have always heard.
This is not an educator problem to solve alone.
Leaders create the conditions for a shared approach. Chefs and cooks build nourishment and meaningful choice into the food. Educators hold the rhythm of the meal and remain alongside children. Families contribute knowledge about language, culture, appetite and experience. Relievers and new team members need enough orientation to understand not only what the centre says, but why.
When these parts are working together, adults often need fewer words.
The meal is recognisable. The bowls are within reach. More food is available. Children know the rhythm. The adults trust the menu. Everyone understands where responsibility sits.
Language then becomes less about making eating happen and more about helping children participate, communicate and belong.
Continue the conversation with your team
Everyday language is one of the easiest things to change—and one of the hardest things to notice while a mealtime is unfolding.
The accompanying Whose Job Is It guide asks us to listen beneath the sentence.
Does this phrase keep nourishment, structure and adult anxiety with us?
Or does it ask the child to carry appetite, bravery, gratitude, nutrition—or our need to know that the meal has succeeded?
Whose Job Is It? is a free A3 team noticing guide designed to support thoughtful conversations about mealtime language. Rather than offering perfect scripts, it helps teams pause, notice where responsibility is sitting, and explore small shifts in language, service and adult practice together.
Download it, print it, and use it as a starting point for your next team discussion.
There may already be many moments of calm, warmth and trust that deserve to be noticed.
There may also be one familiar sentence that everyone suddenly hears differently.
That is the quiet power of language. It is small enough to escape our attention and powerful enough to shape the whole feeling of the table. It can narrow a child’s room to listen to themselves, or give them the vocabulary to tell us what only they can know. It can turn gratitude into a performance, or let children witness it moving naturally between people. It can carry our anxiety into the meal—or show that the adults, the kitchen and the wider system are already holding what belongs with them.
All of that, somehow, is right there at the tip of our tongues.
Download the free shared noticing guide for mealtime language: Whose Job Is It? — A Shared Noticing Guide for Mealtime Language.
A note about individual feeding needs: This field note addresses everyday mealtime language and food learning. Persistent distress around eating, pain, frequent gagging, coughing or choking, difficulty chewing or swallowing, a narrowing range of accepted foods, nutritional deficiency or growth concerns require discussion with the child’s family and individual assessment from the appropriate health professionals.
Suggested research
-
Researchers directly observed adult mealtime communication across 63 classrooms, including language exploring food, applying pressure, directing behaviour, making comparisons and referring to hunger or fullness.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-020-10087-8
-
A descriptive study of nine Canadian centres showing that pressure often appeared through subtle, well-intentioned encouragement, praise, repeated offering and adult action that did not refer to children’s hunger or fullness.
-
An analysis of childcare staff language highlighting the frequency of external cues about quantities, finishing, trying and adult approval.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404609002905
-
A two-year study exploring how sensory education influenced children’s ability to identify tastes and smells and describe food properties. Improvements were modest and not always consistent, which is useful context when avoiding exaggerated promises.
-
An international approach that encourages children to explore food through all five senses, recognise differences in individual perception and move beyond simple like/dislike language.
-
A small dinner-table study examining how children encountered and were prompted to use familiar courtesy routines such as please and thank you.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01638538409544603
-
A review identifying modelling, everyday scaffolding and conversation as interconnected ways adults may support the development of gratitude, while acknowledging that culture and context matter.
-
A study examining snack time as a language-learning context and noting the relationship between stronger language-support practices and educators sitting with children.
-
There is good evidence for treating this as a form of pressure rather than as a completely neutral invitation. In childcare studies, directions to try, eat or finish food have been coded as language that may work against children’s attention to hunger and satiation. A 2025 observational study likewise found that encouraging children to try food was one of the most common forms of pressure-to-eat used by educators. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1499404609002905
There is also experimental evidence that pressure can be counterproductive. In Galloway and colleagues’ preschool study, children ate more and made fewer negative comments when they were not asked to finish the food. https://pure.psu.edu/en/publications/finish-your-soup-counterproductive-effects-of-pressuring-children/
We do not have direct evidence for the precise claim that the child eats “to reassure or please an adult”. That is a credible interpretation of the social dynamic, but the feeding studies did not ask children whether pleasing the adult was their motivation.
-
The underlying point is well supported. Measures used in childcare research define pressure-to-eat as comments based on the adult’s perception of how much the child needs, rather than on the child’s hunger or satiety. “I tell the children if they have not eaten enough” is used as a direct example. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12966-018-0717-x
Evidence on feeding and appetite regulation is more complicated and often bidirectional: adults may pressure children because those children are already highly responsive to fullness and therefore eat less than adults expect. One longitudinal study, for example, found that children’s greater satiety responsiveness predicted later parental pressure, rather than pressure clearly causing reduced satiety responsiveness. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11956066/
-
This one has the most specific theoretical support. A major review of food-parenting practices uses almost this exact phrase as its example of person praise: telling a child she is “a good girl for eating vegetables”. The authors suggest that this may communicate conditional adult regard and interfere with the child internalising eating habits for themselves. Importantly, they also say that evidence about praise more broadly is mixed and that its effects probably depend on the nature and tone of the praise. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4892304/
The concern also draws on broader child-development research. In experiments with five- and six-year-olds, praise directed at the child as a person—such as “You’re a good girl”—was more likely than process-focused feedback to communicate contingent worth and contribute to less adaptive responses after a setback. That was not a food study, so we should identify it as supporting theory rather than direct mealtime evidence. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10380873
-
Models courtesy without linking adult approval to eating. It also demonstrates the idea that children learn “please” and “thank you” by hearing adults use them naturally—not only through “What do you say?” prompts.
-
The word mine is doing important work. It communicates:
This is my perception of the food. Yours may be different.
It does not define the food for the child or tell them what they ought to notice. It quietly models the vocabulary children can use to describe their own distinctive sensory experience.
